DACA's Legality, Rollback Focus Of 9th Circ. Arguments

Jeffrey Davidson is quoted in a Law360 article regarding oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit in a case challenging the federal government's attempted rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Davidson, who represents the University of California in the case, argued that the Administration failed to provide proper justification for its rescission of the program, embedding the argument about its potential litigation risk into a single phrase—saying that the program “should” be set aside—in the September memo announcing the program’s termination. “It’s just too heavy of an analysis to hang on the single word ‘should,’” he said.

Davidson also said that the preliminary injunction entered by the district court in the case was appropriate given the insufficient justification advanced by the government. “The injunction was correctly entered because the government's rescission of DACA was based on an incorrect conclusion of law, and it’s the quintessential role of the courts to review those conclusions of law and make sure that agencies are abiding by them."